Palmer v. Ohio State University
Docket: No. 02-3442
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; September 18, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
David D. Palmer appeals pro se from a district court ruling that dismissed his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. The court referred the appeal to a panel, which unanimously determined that oral argument was unnecessary. Palmer alleged violations of his constitutional rights during his incarceration with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC), claiming he was denied adequate medical care for a cardiac condition both at ODRC and the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC), where he had surgery. The district court dismissed Palmer's case on March 12, 2002, which the appellate court construed as an award of summary judgment due to the consideration of evidence beyond the pleadings. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact. The affidavit from Assistant Chief Inspector Linda Coval indicated that Palmer had filed a grievance against Dr. Oppong but had not appealed any grievances regarding other ODRC employees, leading to the conclusion that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies concerning those claims. This dismissal was deemed proper. Palmer's Eighth Amendment claim necessitated proof of exposure to a substantial risk of serious harm and deliberate indifference, which he failed to establish. Although he argued the surgery he received was more invasive than consented to, the court found he had received medical treatment, which indicated a medical malpractice claim—cognizable under § 1983. Additionally, the district court noted it lacked jurisdiction over claims against a state agency and that the defendants were not amenable to suit in their official capacities. Palmer's claims against individual defendants were also dismissed for either lack of administrative exhaustion or insufficient merit. Regarding the RICO allegations, Palmer claimed that ODRC saves money by sending inmates to OSUMC, where they are treated by medical students and interns, but the court found he did not allege sufficient predicate acts to support a RICO claim. His assertions of fraud and assault did not meet the basic requirements of the statute. The appellate court reviewed Palmer's additional arguments and found them unpersuasive. Consequently, all pending motions were denied, and the district court's judgment was affirmed.